|
System Metternich posted:In Germany the courts put it even more directly; over here you are sentenced “in the name of the people“. That phrase had got an interesting history, by the way. Before 1918 it was “in the name of the emperor/king/duke/whatever“, depending on where in Germany you were. During the Weimar Republic it was “in the name of the Reich“, which the Nazis changed to “in the name of the German people“. In the years after the war, but before the reestablishment of a German state it was (and this is just a delicious fact imo) “in the name of the Law“. They probably decided on partially reusing the Nazi phrasing afterwards because after 1949 suddenly there were two German states, but still only one German people. and everyone hates saxony
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
I thought everyone hates Prussians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
bavarians hate prussians everyone else hates bavarians everyone also hates saxony, but for different reasons also if you consume fake news you are eating poo poo-the pope -the guardian
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
*extremely straight white guy voice*the worst thing about conservative catholics is that they take objection to me saying gently caress every thirty seconds
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
 I'm a friend of orthodox liturgy myself, but his picture makes me want to pick up my guitar and head to the next church to sing 1970s feelgood songs about Mother Earth while an aging priest wearing streetclothing and a stole awkwardly tries to dance along
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:if you consume fake news you are eating poo poo-the pope -the guardian excuse me, as a traditionalist I know every word that comes out of His Holiness' mouth is rank heresy so give me a few moments to invent a reason why fake news is actually good or maybe I'll just start screaming about liberals and never stop System Metternich posted:
Peter Kreeft is an ex-Calvinist convert and I generally agree with him regarding the existence of an absolute morality, but wow a lot of his supporters are just plain awful people who don't understand philosophical arguments and see the devil of moral relativism in every shadow (hint: it's Mussolini and von Mises, not Martin Luther King.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Question for Catholics: What is the theological basis that gives Cardinals the power to elect a new Pope?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Yeah the people I know are, even if I don't quite agree with them on some things, generally decent people; I just wish they'd also fit into the Venn diagram of "people who can watch a Scorsese movie without fainting"
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:bavarians hate prussians Speaking as a traditionalist, this is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:excuse me, as a traditionalist I know every word that comes out of His Holiness' mouth is rank heresy so give me a few moments to invent a reason why fake news is actually good or maybe I'll just start screaming about liberals and never stop Who are the people who think Martin Luther King (Jr? I assume) is a moral relativist? SirPhoebos posted:Question for Catholics: What is the theological basis that gives Cardinals the power to elect a new Pope? Theologically, the basis of power for the electors to chose a new Pope is God the Holy Spirit, the fount of wisdom which each elector (and non-elector, for that matter) has access and obligation to. Materially, a papal conclave is a millennia-old tradition of oligarchical and theocratic selection, and its rules have been developed alongside other material pressures of power and succession in medieval Europe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
The Pope used to be elected by the Romans (he is the bishop of Rome, after all). This then switched to the Roman clergy. After a while non-Roman priests were declared to be honorary Romans because of their influence and whatnot, and today we've got the weird situation that an international college of cardinals is in theory still a group of Roman city clergy. Every member of the college is given a church in Rome when he is created cardinal, and in this church they're honorary deacon or priest (or, for the eldest and most powerful cardinals, bishops). Until the 60s they also had certain privileges in their church, though I forget which. This is also why you'll see cardinals in deacons' vestments assisting the Pope during Mass. Historically speaking it was more common for the laity or at least the local clergy to elect their bishop. I think with the exception of Rome itself this privilege has vanished everywhere, giving the Pope full power to appoint new bishops instead (with the exception of some dioceses in Central Europe where the cathedral canons choose three candidates from which the Pope again chooses one). At least for the cardinals the theory is that they're moved by the Holy Spirit to choose the right candidate; I'm guessing that it was/is the same for other ecclesiastical elections?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Who are the people who think Martin Luther King (Jr? I assume) is a moral relativist? Kinists. Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. denied the divinity of Christ and was actually a secret communist? *insert five hundred words in favor of ethnocentricism here* and therefore I must conclude that the real racists are black people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Kinists. Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. denied the divinity of Christ and was actually a secret communist? *insert five hundred words in favor of ethnocentricism here* and therefore I must conclude that the real racists are black people. Did you know that the Jews created the Catholic Church as a mechanism to enshrine themselves within other ethno-cultural groups as the chosen people? Among the kinists, it is known.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
There's a rather large overlap between people who criticise moral relativism and those who rail against cultural Marxism, so a certain level of wariness is understandable. Also, something, something, Kantian nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Kinists. Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. denied the divinity of Christ and was actually a secret communist? *insert five hundred words in favor of ethnocentricism here* and therefore I must conclude that the real racists are black people. Reading up on kinism on wikipedia I discovered that /pol/ is considered a white nationalist group.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
so supposedly there's a new document on priests, approved by francis, that is damaging to gay priests. anyone here read it and willing to share the tea with the class?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:so supposedly there's a new document on priests, approved by francis, that is damaging to gay priests. anyone here read it and willing to share the tea with the class? Found it: http://www.clerus.va/content/dam/clerus/Ratio%20Fundamentalis/The%20Gift%20of%20the%20Priestly%20Vocation.pdf Reading it now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
dot va
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Found it: http://www.clerus.va/content/dam/clerus/Ratio%20Fundamentalis/The%20Gift%20of%20the%20Priestly%20Vocation.pdf I was about to but then I saw 90 pages and I just have better things to do today than that
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:I was about to but then I saw 90 pages and I just have better things to do today than that Don't worry, I'm from the internet. So far it says nothing new, except regard for "mature vocations". I giggle at that because I am literally 12. Edit: Look out goons, it commands priests to go out and evangelize the "digital peripheries" Worthleast fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:I was about to but then I saw 90 pages and I just have better things to do today than that Page 82. It's quotes from Benedict XVI and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nothing new from Pope Francis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Peter Kreeft is an ex-Calvinist convert and I generally agree with him regarding the existence of an absolute morality, but wow a lot of his supporters are just plain awful people who don't understand philosophical arguments and see the devil of moral relativism in every shadow (hint: it's Mussolini and von Mises, not Martin Luther King.) Kreeft is, from everything I can tell, a perfectly decent dude, but his fanboys think they're doing theology when what they're really doing is apologetics, which is theology with all the training wheels on. They're the Catholic equivalent of Reddit logic-bros who'll talk your ear off for an hour about necessary and contingent truth-claims, but won't take even one minute to silently contemplate the mystery and majesty of the Divine Logos. You get the feeling that there's some serious "forest for the trees" business going on with those types.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
i've got half a mind to advocate banning ex-Calvinists from Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but I know that's a sin against charity because it'd make it impossible for them to escape but seriously, those guys sometimes do some real damage to the corners of the church they end up in
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i've got half a mind to advocate banning ex-Calvinists from Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but I know that's a sin against charity because it'd make it impossible for them to escape just ban everyone, convert or not, from writing or teaching about the faith in any public authoritative context for a minimum of 20 years after their confirmation, with every exception to be reviewed personally by a bishop. private faith talks with your friends? go ahead. but no teaching or publishing on catholic theology until you've lived a couple decades as a normal catholic
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Kreeft is, from everything I can tell, a perfectly decent dude, but his fanboys think they're doing theology when what they're really doing is apologetics, which is theology with all the training wheels on. They're the Catholic equivalent of Reddit logic-bros who'll talk your ear off for an hour about necessary and contingent truth-claims, but won't take even one minute to silently contemplate the mystery and majesty of the Divine Logos. You get the feeling that there's some serious "forest for the trees" business going on with those types. I think I object to your "apologetics is theology with all the training wheels on" characterization. I agree with you that a lot of folks think they're doing theology when they're just doing apologetics, but that's not because apologetics is (necessarily) easier; it's like the difference between writing code and documenting it, in my mind. Kreeft does an amazing job of explaining how various parts of doctrine fit together, or how some theological statements could be or should be obvious even without faith, from what I've read of his writing; he's not really breaking new theological ground any more than a technical writer is breaking new ground in the field of cryptography or linear programming, but (to his credit) I don't think he ever claims to be. (Fanboys are, as always, a different issue.) Bel_Canto posted:just ban everyone, convert or not, from writing or teaching about the faith in any public authoritative context for a minimum of 20 years after their confirmation, with every exception to be reviewed personally by a bishop. private faith talks with your friends? go ahead. but no teaching or publishing on catholic theology until you've lived a couple decades as a normal catholic Or we could just ban everyone, convert or not, confirmed 20 years ago or not, from teaching about the faith in any authoritative context without being personally reviewed by a bishop, especially since in some parts of the US that'd mean 27-year-olds were okay to go about without an imprimatur tattooed on their tongues, and in others 35-year-olds would still be waiting!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:just ban everyone, convert or not, from writing or teaching about the faith in any public authoritative context for a minimum of 20 years after their confirmation, with every exception to be reviewed personally by a bishop. private faith talks with your friends? go ahead. but no teaching or publishing on catholic theology until you've lived a couple decades as a normal catholic hey i wrote a good peer reviewed article comparing jodo shinshu and catholicism like seven years after converting and let me tell you it was Good with a capital g
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:I think I object to your "apologetics is theology with all the training wheels on" characterization. I agree with you that a lot of folks think they're doing theology when they're just doing apologetics, but that's not because apologetics is (necessarily) easier; it's like the difference between writing code and documenting it, in my mind. Kreeft does an amazing job of explaining how various parts of doctrine fit together, or how some theological statements could be or should be obvious even without faith, from what I've read of his writing; he's not really breaking new theological ground any more than a technical writer is breaking new ground in the field of cryptography or linear programming, but (to his credit) I don't think he ever claims to be. (Fanboys are, as always, a different issue.) Oh yeah, Kreeft is a perfectly honest writer; like I said, he seems to be a pretty good guy, and he's pretty straightforward about what his project is. The problem, on further reflection, is American parochialism in general. Virtually nothing important in the Catholic Church gets carried out in English and nobody else in the world gives a poo poo about G. K. Chesterton, but still every year you see English-origin books being touted as "supremely important" new contributions and firmly midrange writers like Chesterton or Fulton Sheen hailed as champions of the faith. Or maybe it's the nostalgia trap again, I dunno. Point is, he's not under any illusions about what he's doing, but his fanboys seem to think every book is a major event whose every proposition needs to be gone over in detail. Bel_Canto fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:just ban everyone, convert or not, from writing or teaching about the faith in any public authoritative context for a minimum of 20 years after their confirmation, with every exception to be reviewed personally by a bishop. private faith talks with your friends? go ahead. but no teaching or publishing on catholic theology until you've lived a couple decades as a normal catholic And this surely won't end with the bishops getting power to decide what's best for people to read or not read. Also, is moral relativism bad, as a thing? I know this isn't the "philosophy 101" thread, but I am curious. Bel_Canto posted:firmly midrange writers like Chesterton Having managed to get a bit further through "orthodoxy" without throwing it across the room I would like to lodge a formal request that this be downgraded to a "firmly bullshit writers". Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Or maybe it's the nostalgia trap again, I dunno. It's this. Anything new is bad, unless it is exactly how we choose to remember the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:And this surely won't end with the bishops getting power to decide what's best for people to read or not read. please dont start this
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:just ban everyone, convert or not, from writing or teaching about the faith in any public authoritative context for a minimum of 20 years after their confirmation, with every exception to be reviewed personally by a bishop. private faith talks with your friends? go ahead. but no teaching or publishing on catholic theology until you've lived a couple decades as a normal catholic Every month there's been a post on r/Catholicism that basically boils down to "the pope is a loving heretic and I hope he dies soon bring Benedict back also I'm in RCIA." why are you even converting in the first place
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
so they can be sede vacantist and have it mean something, dammit
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Oh yeah, Kreeft is a perfectly honest writer; like I said, he seems to be a pretty good guy, and he's pretty straightforward about what his project is. The problem, on further reflection, is American parochialism in general. Virtually nothing important in the Catholic Church gets carried out in English and nobody else in the world gives a poo poo about G. K. Chesterton, but still every year you see English-origin books being touted as "supremely important" new contributions and firmly midrange writers like Chesterton or Fulton Sheen hailed as champions of the faith. Or maybe it's the nostalgia trap again, I dunno. Point is, he's not under any illusions about what he's doing, but his fanboys seem to think every book is a major event whose every proposition needs to be gone over in detail. The problem is as much nothing gets carried out in the Church in English as "Everybody speaks English, but the Church works in Italian, or maybe German or Spanish or French when it feels like it". It is literally not possible to do theology without being fluent - really fluent, not just basically fluent - in multiple languages, and that is actually a fairly huge barrier to entry for most people, especially since language training takes time and money, both in significant amounts. To bash the Americans because nothing gets done in English is to misapprehend the problem. The problem is that theology studies, by reason of the language barrier, is basically impossible for most Americans and other English-language-natives, because expecting someone to master not just one foreign langauge, but three or four, is incredibly unrealistic when they're not really going to be able to use it in daily life. And the European-centricity of theology is a huge problem, when you consider that the theological controversies of Europe/N America aren't even on the radar for, for example, Catholics in Africa or Asia or the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Reading up on kinism on wikipedia I discovered that /pol/ is considered a white nationalist group. Kinda? Election 2016 is a trip
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:To bash the Americans because nothing gets done in English is to misapprehend the problem. The problem is that theology studies, by reason of the language barrier, is basically impossible for most Americans and other English-language-natives, because expecting someone to master not just one foreign langauge, but three or four, is incredibly unrealistic when they're not really going to be able to use it in daily life. edit: one of my advisors also wants me to learn swedish lol HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Theology is supposed to be more accessible than history, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
I mean I've been looking into Japanese religion programs and most of them require similar requirements for language learning, and I'm looking at Buddhist studies programs. Academia just requires you to be a polyglot I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:really? i learned german for my work, also read in french and a little latin, and must in the future learn italian and czech. if this is a barrier to english-native theologians why are there english-native historians? There's a huge amount of Biblical scholarship only accessible in German. Academic German is horrifying and I'm not learning it okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Also, is moral relativism bad, as a thing? I know this isn't the "philosophy 101" thread, but I am curious. What does moral relativism mean to you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Caufman posted:What does moral relativism mean to you? whatever you want it to mean
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 03:11
|
|